jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (55 posts)

Rand Paul filibusters the drones.

  1. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    Despite what you may think Rand Paul was speaking out against the drone program.
    After having heard so much dismay and grief from the left about this program and how much they disagreed with it I can only wonder why some of the Democrats did not join him?

    Or is the word bipartisan just a tool to you?

    1. Zelkiiro profile image89
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Because allying yourself with Rand Paul, even on those rare occasions when he's correct about something, is still painting a giant "I'm a lunatic!" sign on your back.

      They'll probably be subtle and unseen about their alliance with him.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image89
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      But then again, this is the Senate we're talking about...

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I usually disagree with Rand Paul, mainly because I think things like a robust public infrastructure, the National Weather Service, NASA, safe drinking water, the National Parks, and the Coast Guard are pretty nifty things.

      But on this issue, he's dead right.

  2. innersmiff profile image68
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    I stand with Rand . . .  on this particular issue.

    1. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Rand Paul did what needed to be done to call attention to this violation of our Constitution.  Had it been ignored, it would no doubt be accepted policy by the end of the week.  There should have been more than one person protesting this and my hat is off to Rand Paul.

  3. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    I wonder what circumstances Eric Holder has in mind when he says they can use drones against Americans on American soil?


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -soil.html

    ?

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Rand Paul is only interested in Rand Paul and running for President.

    1. Barefootfae profile image60
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think you will find some Democrats on his side on this one.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I'm sure there are, but they don't make it all about themselves.

        1. Barefootfae profile image60
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          You don't think he should have spoken up?
          Just because he's a Republican?

          1. profile image0
            Old Poolmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Somebody had to speak up and apparently Rand Paul was the only one there that had guts enough to do it.  The rest were all afraid they might lose a vote or two if they stood up for the Constitution.

            1. Barefootfae profile image60
              Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Flippin John McCain comes out this morning and tries to apologize for him doing that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              1. profile image0
                Old Poolmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I didn't see that.  It seems it is time for John McCain to hang up his spurs and retire?  But it will be up to us to force him into reitrement at the next election.

                1. Barefootfae profile image60
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
                  See all I hear is GOP. Those guys are the GOP and why these liberals have a problem with them I have no idea. They last night did what I have been saying for years and went out and had a steak with Barack Obama and of course today they are defending him.
                  There is no difference in the mainstream of the two parties. None whatsoever.

                  1. profile image0
                    Old Poolmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    I wonder if the tax payers had to pay for their steaks?

  5. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7762503_f248.jpg

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Eric Holder's two-sentence letter responding to Rand Paul's 13-hour filibuster.

      http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/2ac26d9268277a3c/images/1-94c0edc99c.jpg

      1. Barefootfae profile image60
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Which he had to do because of this:


        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -soil.html

        And I don't believe a word he says.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, facts. We don't pay any attention to those when they conflict with our narrative. We prefer the cognitive dissonance.

    2. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      A picture is worth a 1000 words. This reminds me of the socialist communist picture that says-

      I support Socialist policies, so I'll volunteer to pay extra taxes just to help out" -


      said no socialist, EVER.

  6. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7768428_f248.jpg

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, where were you when Bush was illegally wiretapping our phones?

      Unless you were protesting then, too, you're guilty of exactly that kind of hypocrisy.

  7. movingout profile image61
    movingoutposted 4 years ago

    Not that it matters, but why didn't Paul do the same thing when President Bush was President? Just curious why it's such a big deal now?

    1. Barefootfae profile image60
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The drone program wasn't in place to be utilized over here then was it?
      No.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "why didn't Paul do the same thing when President Bush was President?"

      [set sarcasm="on"]Because questioning W's use of warrantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and other unconstitutional overreaches was unpatriotic and unamerican.  Silly. It's only patriotic to point out these kinds of things when Democrats do them. [Set sarcasm="off"]

      1. profile image0
        Old Poolmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Jeff, are you saying you would be in favor of this proposal?

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          What proposal? Is there a proposal that we've been discussing?

          I thought we were talking about whether it was okay for the Executive Branch to kill Americans without a trial on American soil. I think it's not okay. And so does Eric Holder, apparently, according to his letter.

          So what's the proposal?

          1. profile image81
            Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            This is the same administratin that advocated removing suspected terrorists from Guantanamo Bay so they could have a trial in New York.  I guess you only have rights if you are not American now.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Apparently you didn't see the Attorney General's assertion that the executive branch doesn't have the right to kill an American not engaged in combat on US soil?

              You know, in the letter from the A.G. to Rand Paul that Pretty Panther posted above?

              But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your knee-jerk Obama-bashing.

              1. profile image61
                retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I am certain he dictated the letter because his arms were sore from all the twisting required to get the Attorney General to assert that which has been commonly accepted since the days of the founding.  Hard to put down the knife once you are mesmerized by the shiny blade, I suppose.

              2. profile image81
                Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Jeff Berndt,

                No, I did see it, though it took an act of Congress to get a straight answer from him.  If an American is not on American soil, he/she can be killed.

                This isn't knee-jerl Obama bashing.  I have been opposed to this kind of abuse of government power since Bush's Patriot Act.  Don't have a knee-jerk emotional moment about protecting Obama.  This isn't about Comrade Obama as much as it is about an abuse of power from the executive branch, be it a republican or a democrat.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  "....though it took an act of Congress to get a straight answer from him."
                  Wait, what? You mean congress passed a resolution on this subject? Because that's what "an act of Congress" is.

                  "I have been opposed to this kind of abuse of government power since Bush's Patriot Act."
                  Good for you; you're a rarity!

                  "This isn't about Comrade Obama..."
                  Oh, of course. lol

                  1. profile image81
                    Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    It's figurative language, not literal.

                    I know it's hard for some people not to play politics, but this one truly is about freedom.  NO president should have the powers granted within the Patriot Act.  No president should have the authority to run drone missions on his own people.  This reminds me of the Chinese running tanks in Tiananmen Square.

              3. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                You seem to be actually equating foreign terrorists, foreign countries that had terrorists, Saddam Hussein, the very soon after 911 attack time frame, with TODAY, Americans and American Soil and claiming they are comparatively the same.

                Further, you are using a tu quoque fallacy, suggesting a claim that other people are hypocrites for things Bush did, which by default you also disagree with, yet when Obama does it and in an increasing amount, as far as drone attacks, talk of using drones over American soil, continued war in Afghanistan and extensions of the Patriot Act- you consider this "obama bashing"?

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  You seem to be actually equating foreign terrorists, foreign countries that had terrorists, Saddam Hussein, the very soon after 911 attack time frame, with TODAY, Americans and American Soil and claiming they are comparatively the same.
                  What? Seriously, whose posts are you reading? 'Cos if you're referring to mine, your comprehension skills are in the toilet.

                  yet when Obama does it and in an increasing amount, as far as drone attacks, talk of using drones over American soil,
                  You can go ahead and ignore the A.G.'s very clear assertion that the executive branch does not have the authority to kill US citizens on US soil without due process, but other people, who pay attention to reality, will see that your argument is founded on air.

                  continued war in Afghanistan
                  I've already addressed this argument: we were there before Obama took over, and to suddenly withdraw would be grossly irresponsible. You do remember that we supported the Afghans against the USSR, right? And you do remember that the Mujahideen(sp?) evolved into the Taliban after the USSR pulled out and we bailed on them, right? Do you seriously think it'd be a good idea to withdraw from Afghanistan right away, right now? If you do, then....roll

                  extensions of the Patriot Act-
                  That's the only legitimate complaint you've listed.

                  you consider this "obama bashing"?
                  Yes, because you listed one real thing among a bunch of stuff from fantasy-land. Or, if you genuinely think that an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq would be a good idea, well....again, roll

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    "why didn't Paul do the same thing when President Bush was President?"
                    You wrote-
                    [set sarcasm="on"]Because questioning W's use of warrantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and other unconstitutional overreaches was unpatriotic and unamerican.  Silly. It's only patriotic to point out these kinds of things when Democrats do them. [Set sarcasm="off"]


                    Of course Rand Paul was not in position at that time, but you offer "torture, detention etc" - The detention of people that are being considered as possible combatants of whom some when released went on to do suicide bombings, make videos for al queda, etc etc etc. at a time shortly after the 911 attacks and around the time of being at war with Iraq.

                    Above you are obviously equating the two. The difference is the time - place- and people.  TODAY is not right after 911.  American citizens are not suspected terrorists during a war.  You imply that the overreaches are comparable.

                    Now, As far as ignoring the Attorney General, redundant claim after a 13 hour filibuster? A 13 hour filibuster? And we get a note from the Attorney General?  A 13 hour filibuster?  Thank goodness Mr Paul was not pulling obamas tooth or the attorneys generals tooth and it took 13 hours.



                    Its not unpatriotic or unamerican to take extreme measures during times like 9/11 or during an active war. But we are not talking about then. We are not talking about potential foreign combatants. Extreme measure at extreme times are understandable.

                    But when politicians try to circumvent the People and Constitution - specifically regarding THE PEOPLE and America itself, Its completely Patriotic and American to say no further.

                    Americans live in a Republic and a Democracy. Attorney Generals and Presidents dont call the shots. WE THE PEOPLE do. Backed up by the Constitution of the United States. Not the other way around.

    3. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      1. Because Paul was sworn in on January 5, 2011.

      2 Drones being used over American Soil is a big deal

      1. profile image81
        Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Agreed.  You could write a novel talking about the government listening to your calls, scanning your emails, watching you from the sky, and putting Americans on a kill list.  Thirty years ago, people would have called that novel science fiction.  Now, it would be nonfiction.  This is the new America; it's one where our personal freedoms are eroding, and  our privacy is nonexistent.  Where is the ACLU on this one?

 
working